Hacker News Reader

Comment by nostrademons | Hacker News Reader

I saw MikeyD's tech talk on fixing healthcare.gov on my second-to-last day at Google; it made me very glad that I'd pushed out my end date until mid-week. The key idea in it was just the idea of "show up and try" - that we have all these broken systems because the people with the skills to fix them won't even show up and try. Very inspiring - I thought that it very much demonstrated the entrepreneurial mindset, even if it was the federal government we were talking about.

I think this may also be evidence of a trend I've pointed out before, that the press is reliably 2 years late in pointing out where people are leaving Google to go to. I used to periodically glance at the list of departures back when I was at Google. Around late 2012 or mid 2013 I saw a lot more folks start to go into public-sector work: non-profits, academia, or government service. Overall a positive trend, I think.

View on HN

Your comment rings sympathetic, and your motivations are unquestionably honorable, but there's still no way I'd even consider "just showing up and trying". I'd show up and try for a $200k salary and some staff to take care of the paperwork and drudgery associated with these government/non-profit jobs. But not for a shit job with shit pay. After all, Google (and the like) pay market rate (well, now that the cartel has been busted), and treat their employees with courtesy and respect.

It's well known that the federal government simply DOES NOT pay market rate for talent. Now it is able to get away with that behavior in sectors (cough, banking) where there's consistent regulatory capture: so you're incentivized to spend some years at the government to learn how the system works, and then parlay that into a higher pay job subverting those systems. So the government still gets some rotating talent despite paying absolute shit. But there's no such regulatory capture possible in tech, nor am I interested in going down that path even if it existed (I consider it moderately evil, and am still naively idealist at least in that respect).

Look, I'm not solely money grubbing. Money is nice. I grew up without it and now that I have relatively larger quantities of it, my life has unquestionably improved (with luxuries like consistent access to good dentists). I'd eventually like more of it. I'm not short-term greedy. I'm willing to defer compensation for years, if not decades, if I feel that there's potential monetary reward at the end of the line.

But from what I see, Mikey Dickerson made a pile of money at first, and thus was free to pursue his political goals of bailing out an incompetent administration that he nevertheless believed in and wanted their signature achievement to succeed. And maybe I'll feel the same once my stock options vest and the mortgage, college tuition, and retirement stockings are stuffed. But don't forget that 99% of the time it's a solid dead end. Mikey was part of a high profile rescue of a high profile failure. But anyone else going in with naive ideals is probably going to get their souls crushed by the sheer drudgery of it, with no Time magazine cover to boost their profiles at the end of it.

Welcome to 2014, where people gladly and boldly proclaim their love of greed and selfishness. Some people work for the government to make the world a better place instead of finding ways to make people more addicted to Facebook or clicking on Ads to buy things they don't really want or need. I understand that you don't care about anyone but yourself, but is it really necessary to shout it from the rooftops?

I think the point they were making is that there is no need for the government to rely on such instincts. They're very good to have, but many people have to balance that instinct to help the world with, say, a mortgage. And kids. It's very difficult to be idealistic.

Government could pay market rate for people like developers. Though there would be a higher initial cost, I would bet a lot of money that the systems they produce would save money in the end. Alas, if it's government, it's broken. And we won't see a change soon.

The whole goddamned system is rotten through and through, and one of the main things that perpetuates its existence is when otherwise bright people selflessly sacrifice their time and skill for a cause long since lost, feeding parasites and sociopaths.

I'll selflessly give my time to help .gov when they selflessly decide to switch to socialized medicine and do away with the current crumbling status quo.

In the meantime, they can pay me an honest day's pay for an honest day's work--especially if I have to fix things that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

> but is it really necessary to shout it from the rooftops?

Pot calling the kettle black? And I'm not so sure commenting on HN is the rooftops.

What you identify as greed and selfishness, I identify as prudence. Not knowing what tomorrow will bring and acting like it would not only improve my life, but those around me as well. I can make life for family and friends better by preparing for the worst.

> Some people work for the government to make the world a better place...

Some believe they are making the world a better place even at Facebook, but "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Group-think that occurs in any large organization is dangerous, and that's why we shouldn't assign hard problems and our security to groups susceptible to group-think. Look out for yourself or your group, because ultimately everyone else is.

> I can make life for family and friends better

You realize that that is also selfish, right? Why are your family and friends more important than anyone else's? I understand that many people these days don't feel any need to care about the larger world around them, but I do not understand why they need to be so brash and proud of it.

Tell me why are random strangers just as important as my family and friends? Yours, too?

The onus shouldn't be on me to prove to you why I want to favor my network or ensure their security with my own hard-earned resources. It's on you.

> Tell me why are random strangers just as important as my family and friends? Yours, too?

Because if you think you are more an important that the greater world around you, you become a liability to the rest of the world. The rest of us now need to protect ourselves from you because you have no regard for our well being. You are a burden. I realize you were not raised properly and much of that is not your fault, so I do not blame you. I only feel sorry for the world that now has to deal with you.

I never said I think I'm more important, but even if I did, how does that make me have no regard for your well being?

If I'm taller than my dog, does that mean my dog has no height?

Look, I'm not saying society should value me more than someone else. I'm saying I value myself and my loved ones more than some random person. Your ideals may tell you that you value all living things equally and that "greater world" follows suit, but you don't have to read too much to know that you're fooling yourself.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” – Animal Farm

I don't get how people can down vote my defense of free market wages and doing something in the best interest of one's family. This is not greed, downvoters; it's a recognition and appreciation for scarce resources and getting paid to fulfill some need in the marketplace. The government as a monopoly, cannot allocate resources as efficiently as made apparent by the soaring prices in health costs of which well more than half is directly paid by government programs, and this rollout of Obamacare.

It's pretty typical - and accepted - to care about one's own self, family, and friends more than random strangers simply because you have more information about what will make your self, family, and friends happy than what will make random strangers happy. If you want to make the greatest positive impact possible on the world, focus your efforts on where you have the most information, so that you don't accidentally make things worse out of ignorance.

That's not to say that you can't also care about the world. But it's both illogical and immoral to ignore the good you can do right in front of you, for the abstract notion of good that you might do for the world.

I completely agree with that. I do not mean you should ignore those close to you, but instead meant that they should not be used as an excuse to have a negative impact on the world outside of that inner circle. Thank you for explaining that better than I was able to.

There is greed and selfishness and there is being taken advantage of. When project leadership appeals too much on heroism, unchecked ego, patriotism or loyalty, all kinds of red flags are going up.

Particularly when our government's leadership, our politicians, don't really embody the "show up and try" attitude.

You're not thinking strategically-slash-cynically enough.

This guy did the "show up and try" thing, which he then parlayed into the title of Official White House Tech Fixer. That's the sort of résumé-enhancing title that will bring you literally as much money as you want for the rest of your natural life.

What can you do with it? Do your stint in government, then hang out your shingle as a private consultant. That very day, Fortune 500s will start pointing firehoses spewing money at you in exchange for "consultations" where you parachute in to tell them all their problems are due to their IT staff being idiots. Your White House title will give you unimpeachable (heh) credibility in their eyes. This credibility will last for decades, long after your specific tech knowledge has become obsolete, and will draw you business regardless of political affiliation. (CEOs don't follow politics, all they know is that you're Trusted By Big Shots.) You will also be invited to places like Davos and TED to wax rhapsodic on the Importance of Technology, further prolonging your marketability. It's a meal ticket for life.

It's possible that Mr. Dickerson was financially secure enough already that he didn't need the future payout this title will bring. If anything, that just argues more that such an opportunity would be better for someone who hasn't already made their pile, because for that person, such an opportunity is how a pile is made. Trading a little present-day income for a huge payout down the line is a career approach that should be familiar to those who work in and around VC-backed startups.

Of course, the problem with this strategy is that it only really works best for the first person to pull it off. Everyone after that gets less luster from their association; there will be many Tech Fixers who will come out of programs like the USDS, but none as prominent as the original Fixer. It's a risk/reward thing -- it was not obvious when Mr. Dickerson tried it that "showing up and trying" could lead to glory; so when he tried it, and it worked, he didn't have to share the glory with an army of others. Now it is obvious, so lots of people will pile on to try doing it themselves, and they'll divide the prestige between them. So it goes.

I don't think Mikey's in it for the money. If he wanted, he coudl easily have parlayed his prior experiences into jobs that paid millions (he's good with stats, math, and running production services, there are lots of options for people who do that).

It was also pretty obvious the steps he was taking would lead to this position. He worked on Obama's reelection campaign and got a lot of face time with preeminent people, and felt out whether they would be open to giving him a position of some responsibility and power.

I think Mikey genuinely wants to make a difference and spent a fair amount of time rationalizing and positioning to ensure that when he did make a difference it would have the greatest impact possible and that it would happen on his terms.

I believe the point being made here is that it is easy to not be in it for the money when you have already made enough money and have achieved enough security and stability. And I personally don't think there's anything wrong with that. It just riles up people when you start pontificating about "show up and try" without context.

Well, I take the opposite view. By being risk adverse, I stuck to paths that had a guaranteed but small income (grad school, postdoc, gov't job) instead of the opposite (going to work at Yahoo in '95, because I didn't really know CS). If I had gone to Yahoo in '95, just shown up and tried, I'd be wealthy today.

It's not that these kinds of people have made enough money to be secure and stable. They know they will likely have to work for the rest of their life, and they've deliberately structured it to ensure they can continue to work on interesting problems.

It's not like the normal maslow hierarchy applies to everybody, and it's especially inapt when doing long-term planning, where short-term incovenience can lead to a net win over the long term.

I worked with Mikey and I'm damn sure he's not in it for the money, the prestige, or anything else.

Note: this is how the Ivy League works. A decent education combined with a "credential" that grants authority to parachute in as a "management consultant" to tell people how to do their jobs.

It's nice to see another avenue opening up ("White House fellowships", but it's still the same sort of bad old cronyism.

> still no way I'd even consider "just showing up and trying"

I can't see how the average joe would even be allowed to show up and try. And if they were, what would that say about project security?

>It's well known that the federal government simply DOES NOT pay market rate for talent. Now it is able to get away with that behavior in sectors (cough, banking) where there's consistent regulatory capture: so you're incentivized to spend some years at the government to learn how the system works, and then parlay that into a higher pay job subverting those systems.

Notably, the SEC is exempt from the usual Federal government pay scales, so they do actually pay a lot better than other parts of the government. Still not really enough to compare to equivalent private sector salaries though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com